Talk:Murder of Sarah Everard

Chronology and content of the Sentencing and imprisonment section

I have just removed a duplicate statement about the indecent exposure offences. This was presumably added because the last para of the section is/was about the convictions of Couzens’ colleagues, which occurred in November 2022. The section is now not in chronological order. And I’m not convinced that the material about Cobban and Borders should be in this section. Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Technically it is probably off-topic, but as they were in the same messaging group, I can see the sense is a brief mention. The case highlighted a lot of racist and misogynistic messaging between Met officers.Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

...they were in the same messaging group…. If the article was about Couzens, then this inf might be included, although it is of marginal relevance. But the article is supposed to be about the murder of Sarah Everard. I consider that the inf should be deleted, as irrelevant to the subject of the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Trial of protesters

"In June 2022 the Met announced that it would be prosecuting six people who had attended the vigil for breaking COVID-19 laws. On 10 June, three of them were fined £220 each and each ordered to pay £134 in costs when tried in absentia in a behind-closed-doors trial. The hearings for the other three were due to take place later that month. In August 2022, the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued the prosecutions."

Were these convictions overturned? S C Cheese (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like what happened is that the demonstrators were convicted under a routine procedure without a trial, they then challenged the convictions, and the CPS did not defend the challenges, so that the convictions fell away. But this is not actually stated in this way in the sources. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

She challenged the conviction on the grounds that she had no opportunity to plead not guilty, and the case was then dropped by the CPS and her “crime” removed from the record. She called the apology “empowering”, but said victims of abuse needed more support that could not be provided by the police.

^From the guardian. Not sure what this means saying that you challenge a conviction and then the CPS drop the case feels like a bit of a non-sequitor - kind of like "there was a guilty verdict at the trialtrial and then the victim chose not to press charges.".

All this SJP and FPN is rather odd because "constitutional rulings" in the UK require a trial before any ruling fine, so it gets formulated as "the accused gets to disagree at any time". My suspicion is that rather than the conviction being "challenged" it was administratively "undone" as though she had declined SJP and then it got handed to the CPS who decided not to continue - but obviously this is all conjecture Talpedia 14:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Two links recent and of the time. AFAI can see the convictions were never officially overturned, but whether the fines were ever paid, I don't know, but doubt. The convictions were due to powers granted to police during COVID lockdown to ban public gatherings that were seen as risking public health. The heavy-handed implementation of that ban in this instance, and subsequent convictions, became a PR disaster for the Met and CPS. The convictions are technically in a not dis-similar category to a speeding fine anyway. Pincrete (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Additional link, Talpedia is probably correct. At least two of the convicted opposed the convictions and the CPS decided that carrying on to a trial was discontinued "as it was not in the public interest". Thus the conviction was rendered void rather than being overturned. Pincrete (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah - I'm suspicious that there might be way to "undo" SJP rulings due to administrative error without having to bother a court of appeal, because I suspect the courts of appeal might start getting annoyed with a whole bunch of their time getting taken up by adminstrative failures. Talpedia 15:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Date of birth

The Daily Mail says here: "Sarah Rosemary Everard was born on June 14, 1987, at Redhill Hospital in Surrey..." But we cant use it, of course. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Independent, The Times and The Daily Telegraph sources

The article has 12 sources from The Independent. Of these, 10 are marked as "paid subscription required". As far as I know, however, only a personal registration is required. Perhaps access differs between geographical location? Conversely, there are 8 sources from The Times unmarked, where paid subscription is required. Similarly for the 7 sources from The Daily Telegraph. Why is this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Carpet tape

The Daily Mirror here says it was protector film: "... and two minutes later ordered a 600mm x 100m roll of self-adhesive carpet protector film from Amazon." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a particularly pertinent quote from the prosecutor in that source: "Some of it had been used and given the temporal proximity of the order to the hiring of the car the proper inference to draw is that it was intended to be used and was used during the course of the kidnap". In looking for a better source than WP:DAILYMIRROR, I came across the sentencing remarks (which we use in the article already), which says "The protector film had been used but its precise purpose is unknown". In the absence of an unbiased source (i.e. not the prosecutor), I'm a bit uneasy about including it – if it wasn't used at all it's irrelevant, and if we don't have a source to say it was [likely] used in the attack (we cannot draw the conclusion from the sentencing remarks that its use was relevant), we shouldn't say so. MIDI (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yea, perhaps Mr Couzens just wanted to protect his carpets. Police officers often get muddy boots, don't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Buying the carpet film straight after hiring the car is a smoking gun, as the prosecutor effectively says, but given that Fulford stopped short of saying it was used in the attack, we should consider doing the same – we're not Websleuths (eugh... if you've never gone there, DON'T. Pound-shop Jonathan Creeks everywhere). That said, is there a better source than the Mirror that would allow us to say "the prosecutor stated that the temporal proximity of the car hire and the film purchase suggests that the latter was used in the attack" or something similar? Or do we need to say it at all – what does the reader gain/lose by inclusion/omission? MIDI (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Obviously not a central feature in the commission of these crimes. So probably best left out, I think. Especially as good sources are in short supply. At least we know it wasn't actually "carpet tape"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What's 600mm x 100m in real money? Pincrete (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That would be "0.6 by 100 metres (2 ft 0 in × 328 ft 1 in)", m'lud? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)